The IRS suffered a major defeat last week in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Carlson v. United States, Case No. 12-13736 (June 13, 2014), as the appellate court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part a decision from a Florida district court holding a tax preparer liable for penalties under Code Section 6701. The eleventh circuit held that the burden of proof was not the usual minimum of a "preponderance of the evidence" (sometimes described as "more likely than not") but the higher "clear and convincing evidence" usually applied in civil fraud cases. (Note: the clear/convincing standard is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.) Appellant, Frances Carlson, was a return preparer for Jackson Hewitt tax services.

Section 6701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C., provides for a penalty to be imposed on any person:

(1)who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentat…

The IRS suffered a major defeat last week in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Carlson v. United States, Case No. 12-13736 (June 13, 2014), as the appellate court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part a decision from a Florida district court holding a tax preparer liable for penalties under Code Section 6701. The eleventh circuit held that the burden of proof was not the usual minimum of a "preponderance of the evidence" (sometimes described as "more likely than not") but the higher "clear and convincing evidence" usually applied in civil fraud cases. (Note: the clear/convincing standard is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.) Appellant, Frances Carlson, was a return preparer for Jackson Hewitt tax services.

Section 6701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C., provides for a penalty to be imposed on any person:

(1)who aids or assists in, procures, or
advises with respect to, the preparation or presenta…

The LA times published an interesting article about marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles. The article focuses on the interesting fact that as Los Angeles tries to clamp down on the number of marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles by making them follow Proposition D requirements, more than 450 medical marijuana shops filed business tax renewals with the Office of Finance. This number is more than three times as many stores than what is estimated to be allowed to stay open. So while local lawmakers are troubled by the number of medical marijuana shops that still exist in Los Angeles, the Office of Finance has no problem cashing in on all the taxes being collected from them. The article states that Los Angeles collected roughly $2.1 million from medical marijuana tax renewals this year, an Office of Finance staffer told a City Council committee Monday.

The interesting thing about this article is that City Council is upset that these people are paying business taxes…

The LA times published an interesting article about marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles. The article focuses on the interesting fact that as Los Angeles tries to clamp down on the number of marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles by making them follow Proposition D requirements, more than 450 medical marijuana shops filed business tax renewals with the Office of Finance. This number is more than three times as many stores than what is estimated to be allowed to stay open. So while local lawmakers are troubled by the number of medical marijuana shops that still exist in Los Angeles, the Office of Finance has no problem cashing in on all the taxes being collected from them. The article states that Los Angeles collected roughly $2.1 million from medical marijuana tax renewals this year, an Office of Finance staffer told a City Council committee Monday.

The interesting thing about this article is that City Council is upset that these people are paying business tax…

Symbolic of what? I'll leave that to you. From a Tax Court opinion released earlier this week, file this under Ridiculous Things the IRS Does:

Taxpayers filed a perfectly correct return listing their taxable social security income on the correct line. IRS received the return and, using its big brain, decided the social security income was nontaxable, recalculates the tax, and issued the taxpayers an additional $548 refund. Somehow, the IRS later realized the taxpayers were right and they shouldn't have sent the extra dollar bills, so they audited the couple and demanded they repay the $548. When the couple declined, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, on which the couple appealed to the tax court. Somehow, probably driven by the couple's righteous indignation, the case went all the way to trial, where it was decided in a judicial opinion. The taxpayers argued they shouldn't have to pay for the IRS's mistake, but the court found in favor of the…

Symbolic of what? I'll leave that to you. From
a Tax Court opinion released earlier this week, file this under Ridiculous Things
the IRS Does:

Taxpayers filed a perfectly correct return listing their
taxable social security income on the correct line. IRS received the
return and, using its big brain, decided the social security income was
nontaxable, recalculates the tax, and issued the taxpayers an additional
$548 refund. Somehow, the IRS later realized the taxpayers were right
and they shouldn't have sent the extra dollar bills, so they audited the
couple and demanded they repay the $548. When the couple declined, the
IRS issued a notice of deficiency, on which the couple appealed to the
tax court. Somehow, probably driven by the couple's righteous
indignation, the case went all the way to trial, where it was decided in
a judicial opinion. The taxpayers argued they shouldn't have to pay
for the IRS's mistake, but the court found in favor of t…

The IRS issued a press releases this week, which can be found here, alerting taxpayers to the newly adopted Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which are outlined here. Except there are no new rights and nothing can be "adopted" when it is a list of responsibilities and rights already belonging to the IRS and taxpayers. Imagine if McDonald's put a customer "Bill of Rights" on their menu, which said that, when you pay for a hamburger, we'll give you a hamburger, except when we don't, in which case you can complain to your cashier and then to the manager to see if they care. The IRS's Taxpayer Bill of Rights, included in Publication 1, which presumably will be sent to taxpayers during audits, provides the following:

The IRS issued a press releases this week, which can be found here, alerting taxpayers to the newly adopted Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which are outlined here. Except there are no new rights and nothing can be "adopted" when it is a list of responsibilities and rights already belonging to the IRS and taxpayers. Imagine if McDonald's put a customer "Bill of Rights" on their menu, which said that, when you pay for a hamburger, we'll give you a hamburger, except when we don't, in which case you can complain to your cashier and then to the manager to see if they care. The IRS's Taxpayer Bill of Rights, included in Publication 1, which presumably will be sent to taxpayers during audits, provides the following: